Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Geoffrey Cory-Wright, 3rd Baronet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Geoffrey Cory-Wright, 3rd Baronet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see the statement from Jimbo Wales on the other similar article nominated for deletion here regarding having a complete series of such articles completed despite the possible lack of notability of some family members. Jack1956 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is a different situation. Lord Raglan is a baron, a hereditary peer whose predecessors have all qualified for articles by virtue of being members of the House of Lords and thus members of a national legislature. Had the law not recently been changed, he would have done too. Cory-Wright, on the other hand, was a baronet and baronets have never sat in the House of Lords. We certainly don't have articles on all baronets and neither should we. Only the individual actually created a baronet is inherently notable for his baronetcy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except surely where there is a list of baronets descended from the original baronet who first gained the title? Also, we put a 'next baronet' template at the bottom of such articles, so there would be no need for such a template after the first baronet. Jack1956 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Notability is not inherited, even if titles are. Peers are a different case because of their former status as legislators, which means we already have articles on most of them. This is not the case with baronets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: there's no reason to think that this person meets WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:BASIC. The fact that he didn't sit in the House of Lords is irrelevant. Andrew (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on the baronetcy -- I see nothing notable in his biography. First baronets will inevitably be notable, but their successorts need to earn it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peterkingiron. It does not appear that he did anything that would make him notable. Baronets have not been consiered automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe a claim for notability has been established Jack1956 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how he is individually notable. He served as an officer in WWI, but so did 1000s of others. If he is notable in some way for other things he did, you need to add those things to the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a little more to the article, which I hope is enough to justify keeping it. Jack1956 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB See these comments below from Jimbo Wales and another editor regarding other similar articles nominated for deletion on Flaming Ferrari's long list ([1] see here) and which I agree with:

One thing I have pointed out in my !vote on a number of these is that there is usefulness to the reader in having a complete set of articles on hereditary peers (I think the same of the baronets) even if some of them are less notable than others. Unless there are specific BLP issues that make these articles difficult to responsibly maintain, they are doing some good but causing no harm.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC) Quite silly. By right of their offices, they ARE notable, even if they were not personally notable individuals. Further, deleting these may break chains that link notable great-granparents and their notable progeny down the line. WP austerity measures, the recession really can't be that bad??? :)Brendandh (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.